Rowan v. Kemery
2011 Ohio 2307
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Married in 2006 in Licking County; one child C.K.
- Nov. 6, 2009, appellee filed for divorce; August 2010 contempt motions filed by both sides
- Bench trial held August 20, 2010 on divorce and contempt issues
- October 20, 2010 decree: custody to appellee; child support of $718.05; no spousal support
- Appellant appealed with twelve assignments of error; court affirmed the decree on all challenged aspects
- Property division included marital residence and assorted personal property; dogs/veterinarian bill addressed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Custody/residential parent designation standard | Kemery argues error in designating appellee as residential parent | Rowan argues better interests require different designation | No abuse of discretion; designation upheld |
| Child support calculation | Kemery contends income deemed too high and support miscalculated | Rowan asserts court properly used available income data | No abuse of discretion; support calculation affirmed |
| Division of property and specific items (pets, appliances, vehicle) | Kemery seeks equal division of pets; requests vet bill sharing | Rowan defers to court’s overall distribution; no error in awards | No abuse of discretion; property division affirmed |
| Attorney fees award | Kemery argues fee amount or basis inadequate | Rowan contends award supported by conduct and contempt history | No abuse of discretion; $3,500 affirmed |
| Contempt motion and notice | Kemery contends contempt motion should have been heard | Rowan contends proper notice and service lacking; trial court not wrong | No abuse of discretion; contempt hearing timing proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Booth, 44 Ohio St.3d 142 (1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard governs child support appeals)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard in domestic relations matters)
- Berish v. Berish, 69 Ohio St.2d 318 (1982) (trial court’s discretion in marriage dissolution matters)
